IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v31y2011i11p1694-1700.html

Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions and Communication: Emerging Technologies, Emerging Challenges

Author

Listed:
  • Nick Pidgeon
  • Barbara Harthorn
  • Terre Satterfield

Abstract

Nanotechnology involves the fabrication, manipulation, and control of materials at the atomic level and may also bring novel uncertainties and risks. Potential parallels with other controversial technologies mean there is a need to develop a comprehensive understanding of processes of public perception of nanotechnology uncertainties, risks, and benefits, alongside related communication issues. Study of perceptions, at so early a stage in the development trajectory of a technology, is probably unique in the risk perception and communication field. As such it also brings new methodological and conceptual challenges. These include: dealing with the inherent diversity of the nanotechnology field itself; the unfamiliar and intangible nature of the concept, with few analogies to anchor mental models or risk perceptions; and the ethical and value questions underlying many nanotechnology debates. Utilizing the lens of social amplification of risk, and drawing upon the various contributions to this special issue of Risk Analysis on Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions and Communication, nanotechnology may at present be an attenuated hazard. The generic idea of “upstream public engagement” for emerging technologies such as nanotechnology is also discussed, alongside its importance for future work with emerging technologies in the risk communication field.

Suggested Citation

  • Nick Pidgeon & Barbara Harthorn & Terre Satterfield, 2011. "Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions and Communication: Emerging Technologies, Emerging Challenges," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1694-1700, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:31:y:2011:i:11:p:1694-1700
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01738.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01738.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01738.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baruch Fischhoff, 1995. "Risk Perception and Communication Unplugged: Twenty Years of Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 137-145, April.
    2. Arnall, Alexander & Parr, Douglass, 2005. "Moving the nanoscience and technology (NST) debate forwards: short-term impacts, long-term uncertainty and the social constitution," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 23-38.
    3. Nick F. Pidgeon & Wouter Poortinga & Gene Rowe & Tom Horlick‐Jones & John Walls & Tim O'Riordan, 2005. "Using Surveys in Public Participation Processes for Risk Decision Making: The Case of the 2003 British GM Nation? Public Debate," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 467-479, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yuwan Malakar & Justine Lacey & Paul M Bertsch, 2022. "Towards responsible science and technology: How nanotechnology research and development is shaping risk governance practices in Australia," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, December.
    2. Jiyoun Kim & Sara K. Yeo & Dominique Brossard & Dietram A. Scheufele & Michael A. Xenos, 2014. "Disentangling the Influence of Value Predispositions and Risk/Benefit Perceptions on Support for Nanotechnology Among the American Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(5), pages 965-980, May.
    3. Munan Li & Alan L. Porter, 2018. "Facilitating the discovery of relevant studies on risk analysis for three-dimensional printing based on an integrated framework," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(1), pages 277-300, January.
    4. Kamarulzaman, Nur Aizat & Lee, Khai Ern & Siow, Kim Shyong & Mokhtar, Mazlin, 2020. "Public benefit and risk perceptions of nanotechnology development: Psychological and sociological aspects," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    5. Andrea Guati-Rojo & Christina Demski & Wouter Poortinga & Agustin Valera-Medina, 2021. "Public Attitudes and Concerns about Ammonia as an Energy Vector," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-14, November.
    6. Vicki Stone & Martin Führ & Peter H. Feindt & Hans Bouwmeester & Igor Linkov & Stefania Sabella & Finbarr Murphy & Kilian Bizer & Lang Tran & Marlene Ågerstrand & Carlos Fito & Torben Andersen & Diana, 2018. "The Essential Elements of a Risk Governance Framework for Current and Future Nanotechnologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(7), pages 1321-1331, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Melissa Matlock & Suellen Hopfer & Oladele A. Ogunseitan, 2019. "Communicating Risk for a Climate-Sensitive Disease: A Case Study of Valley Fever in Central California," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-15, September.
    2. Ann Bostrom & Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2003. "Communicating Risk: Wireless and Hardwired," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 241-248, April.
    3. Houghton, J.R. & Rowe, G. & Frewer, L.J. & Van Kleef, E. & Chryssochoidis, G. & Kehagia, O. & Korzen-Bohr, S. & Lassen, J. & Pfenning, U. & Strada, A., 2008. "The quality of food risk management in Europe: Perspectives and priorities," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 13-26, February.
    4. Ruth E Alcock & Jerry Busby, 2006. "Risk Migration and Scientific Advance: The Case of Flame‐Retardant Compounds," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 369-381, April.
    5. Clare Bayley & Simon French, 2008. "Designing a Participatory Process for Stakeholder Involvement in a Societal Decision," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 195-210, May.
    6. Caron Chess & Kandice L. Salomone & Billie Jo Hance & Alex Saville, 1995. "Results of a National Symposium on Risk Communication: Next Steps for Government Agencies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 115-125, April.
    7. Branden B. Johnson & Adam M. Finkel, 2016. "Public Perceptions of Regulatory Costs, Their Uncertainty and Interindividual Distribution," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1148-1170, June.
    8. Wiek, Arnim & Zemp, Stefan & Siegrist, Michael & Walter, Alexander I., 2007. "Sustainable governance of emerging technologies—Critical constellations in the agent network of nanotechnology," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 388-406.
    9. Anabela Carvalho & Jacquelin Burgess, 2005. "Cultural Circuits of Climate Change in U.K. Broadsheet Newspapers, 1985–2003," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1457-1469, December.
    10. Ragnar Lofstedt, 2013. "Communicating Food Risks in an Era of Growing Public Distrust: Three Case Studies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 192-202, February.
    11. Matthew D. Wood & Ann Bostrom & Todd Bridges & Igor Linkov, 2012. "Cognitive Mapping Tools: Review and Risk Management Needs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1333-1348, August.
    12. Jamie K. Wardman, 2008. "The Constitution of Risk Communication in Advanced Liberal Societies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1619-1637, December.
    13. Ragnar E. Löfstedt & Ortwin Renn, 1997. "The Brent Spar Controversy: An Example of Risk Communication Gone Wrong," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 131-136, April.
    14. Sjöberg, Lennart, 2003. "Risk communication between experts and the public: perceptions and intentions," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2003:13, Stockholm School of Economics.
    15. repec:plo:pone00:0198286 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Eric R. Stone & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Abigail M. Wilkins & Emily M. Boker & Jacqueline MacDonald Gibson, 2017. "Designing Graphs to Communicate Risks: Understanding How the Choice of Graphical Format Influences Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 612-628, April.
    17. Sungjong Roh, 2014. "The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail—But Some Don't by Nate Silver, New York Penguin Press. 2012," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 396-398, February.
    18. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    19. R. G. van der Vegt, 2018. "Risk Assessment and Risk Governance of Liquefied Natural Gas Development in Gladstone, Australia," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1830-1846, September.
    20. Elaine Kurtovich & Sylvia Guendelman & Linda Neuhauser & Dana Edelman & Maura Georges & Peyton Mason-Marti, 2015. "Development and First Phase Evaluation of a Maternity Leave Educational Tool for Pregnant, Working Women in California," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, June.
    21. Ruixia Han & Jian Xu, 2020. "A Comparative Study of the Role of Interpersonal Communication, Traditional Media and Social Media in Pro-Environmental Behavior: A China-Based Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-21, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:31:y:2011:i:11:p:1694-1700. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.